The Honorable Preston Stevens Opinion No. H- 52
Wheeler County Attorney
P. 0. Box 472 Re: Constitutionality of H. B.
Wheeler, Texas 79096 1687, 63rd Leg., abolishing
the office of County School
The Honorable Phil Cates Superintendent in Wheeler
House of Representatives county.
State Capitol
Austin, Texas
Gentlemen:
You have submitted to us House Bill 1687 enacted by the 63rd Legia-
lature and signed into law by the Governor. Each of you has questioned
its constitutionality as a special law and has asked that we review it.
House Bill No. 1687, omitting its formal parts provides:
“The office of county school superintendent
in Wheeler County is abolished. All powers and
duties of the abolished office shall be performed
by the county judge as ex officio county school
superintendent. ”
It has long been the law of this State
that an act applying only to one
city or one county within the State is a local law. City of Fort Worth V.
Bobbit, 36 S. W. 2d 470 (Tex. 1931). Thus, in Fritter V. West, 65 S. W. 2d
414 (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio, 1933, err. ref’d.), a bill providing for a
formation of a county-wide common school district in Kinney County, for
the abolition of existing school districts in that County, etc., was held to
be a local bill.
p. 217
The Honorable Preston Stevens
The Honorable Phil Cates, page 2 (H-52)
Not all local and special laws are prohibited by our Constitution.
Those local laws which are prohibited are specified in Article 3 of $ 56
which specifies, among others, “regulating the management of public
schools, the building or repairing of school houses, and the raising of
money for such purposes. ” (emphasis added)
In Fritter v. West, supra, the court held that the attempt, among
other things, to abolish a county-wide common school district by special
law was unconstit:utional and void.
In Attorney General Opinion M-935 (1971), this office was asked to
pass upon a bill which, though ostensibly applicable to all counties having
a certain population, was in fact applicable solely to Matagorda County
and attempted to abolish the office of county superintendent. The opinion
held the bill to be a special law and, thus, unconstitutional and void.
See also Attorney General Opinion M-1200 (1972).
Your request for our opinion points to the fact that the notice pub-
lished in Wheeler County did not correspond to the law enacted as House
Bill 1687. The notice requirement of Article 3, $ 57 is applicable only
to special laws which are otherwise permissible and which are not pro-
hibited by Article 3, $56. Moore v. Edna Hospital District, 449 S. W.
2d 508 (Tex. Civ.App. 3 Corpus Christi, 1969, err. ref’d., n. r. e.).
It is our opinion that there is no constitutional authority to abolish
the office of county school superintendent by a local law; that House Bill
No. 1687 is such a local and special law, with such purpose, and there-
fore, it is unconstitutional and void and of no effect.
SUMMA,RY
Abolition of the office of county school
superintendent in a particular county may not
be accomplished by a special or local law.
-Very truly yours,
A,ttorney
e
General of Texas
p. 2I8
The Honorable Preston Stevens
The Honorable Phil Cates, page 3 (H-52)
W&
\
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 219